Re: Offline distribution (was: Privileged and certified-level app)

On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Monday, October 14, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com (mailto:j.majnert@samsung.com)> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2013-10-04 11:20, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>>>>>> What is the problem the group would like to solve by standardizing "unsigned" packaged apps that is not solved by "hosted apps" (for the sake of a better word) and ServiceWorkers (that will hopefully address the offline problem)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is probably not much.
>>>> 
>>>> I cannot come up with any compelling reasons either. Others?
>>> 
>>> To use a hosted app, you still need to go online at least once.
>>> How about distribution of apps via memory cards or similar, just for side-loading, no store or web involved? IIRC this was a major concern for some major operators when WAC2.1 was discussed a few years back.
>> 
>> In the spirit of reusing existing technology, I think this requirement should be addressed by the Widgets family of specifications [1]. "Web and offline distribution" was one of the original design goals [2].
> 
> 
> Side-loading of signed/unsigned packaged apps is already supported by the Widgets family of specs.   
> 
>> All - anything missing or broken in terms of offline distribution in Widgets? 
> 
> Not that I know of. It was not an issue in WAC.   
>> Feedback from developers? Any known issues that have required implementers to extend Widgets for this particular use case?
> 
> None that I know of.  

Marcos - thanks for the confirmation!

So with regard to requirements around "unsigned" packaged apps, it seems the group is content with Widgets family of specifications. If someone has identified gaps (Origin and CSP support have already been mentioned as potential extensions), please let the group know.

Thanks,

-Anssi

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 11:09:09 UTC